..JEA: Can you elaborate on the statement that “The CIA flooded Portugal with pornography in 1974 and they used it as a weapon when the US invaded Panama in 1989”?
EMJ: By the 1970s, when both Penthouse and Playboy enjoyed their heyday, the CIA began to make use of pornography as one of the weapons on their arsenal of psychological warfare. In 2002 the CIA collaborated with Israel’s Shin Beth in broadcasting pornography over Palestinian TV stations in Ramallah during one Israel’s periodic incursions into Palestinian territory.
During the run-up to the 2003 invasion, the CIA contemplated doing a pornographic featuring a double who looked like Saddam Hussein, as a way of de-legitimizing his government.[5]
In the mid-‘50s the CIA actually produced a pornographic film to bring down President Sukharno of Indonesia.[6] But by the 1970s, it had become clear, if for no other reason than the simple division of labor, that the production of pornography could be out-sourced to people like Robert Guccione (founder and publisher of Penthouse), whose magazines had become more popular with soldiers in Vietnam than Playboy.
By the 1970s, pornography had become one of the psychological weapons of destabilization and control in the CIA’s arsenal of covert warfare. In 1974, the CIA used pornography to derail the communist revolution in Portugal. Someone who was there at the time claimed that after the Thanksgiving weekend revolution of 1974:
“Lisbon area was flooded by some of the most outrageous, blatant, and unbelievably graphic publications I have ever seen. Mrs. Fitzmaurice, our school psychologist, a stringer for Time magazine, published an article entitled ‘Blue Revolution,’ describing the situation. She mentioned that Portugal had surpassed Denmark as the porno center of Europe. That [Ambassador and later CIA director Frank] Carlucci was running Portugal was too obvious to be denied. He apparently had a limitless CIA budget. Former Communists and socialists were now quite wealthy.
“The planing, organizing, and coordinating of the coup d’etat was carried out at the Elliott Roosevelt Arabian Horse Ranch near Lisbon. (Elliott’s son was in my 11th-grade American History class.) Interestingly, thanks to Salazar, for more than four decades, Portugal had been free of anything sexually graphic, and most things suggestive. All foreign films were censored, with offensive scenes cut. All schoolbooks strongly taught Catholic morality. Beach police enforced a strict bathing suit attire. In less than two years, Lisbon moved from being the most crime-free city of Western Europe to having the highest crime rate, including child rape.”[7]
Frank Carlucci served as Ambassador to Portugal from 1974 to 1977. From 1978 to 1981, Carlucci served as Deputy Director of the CIA under Admiral Stansfield Turner. In December 1974, Time magazine, which established close links with the CIA in 1953 under C. D. Jackson,[8] who worked simultaneously for both organizations, ran an article on the Marxist revolution in Portugal entitled “Revolutionary Blue.”[9] The article, which like all articles at that time was unsigned, did not mention Frank Carlucci, but it did state, in Time’s typically coy fashion:
“There have even been charges that the CIA is sponsoring the new pornography to sap the revolution of its energies. Recently, Premier Vasco Goncalves on nationwide television admonished his people to fight pseudo-leftist and anarchists instead of going to see the pornography that is available everywhere.”[10]
JEA: You are right on target once again. If people are skeptical of some of the claims here, they should take a close look at what Benjamin Netanyahu himself has said in front of U.S. officials:............
....
What is the lesson of the story? It is no accident that some Jewish writers, lawyers, and organizations have attacked restrictions and the band of pornography in films and other forms of media.[17] They know that pornography is harmful and addictive, and many studies have raised concerns about its effects on individuals and relationships.[18] Pornography has even been described by some studies as being more harmful and powerful than crack cocaine.[19] One medical expert by the name of Jeffrey Satinover of Princeton declared that pornography “does what heroin can’t do.”[20]
Research has suggested that pornography may initially increase people’s interest in sex, but over time it ruins sexual relationships and intimacy. In The Brain That Changes Itself, Norman Doidge discusses some of the potential effects of pornography on the brain and behavior. Some researchers, including neurosurgeon Donald L. Hilton of the University of Texas, have argued that prolonged exposure to pornography may cause changes in the brain that can be harmful.[21]
Why haven’t these studies led to the closure of the pornography industry? One possible answer is money. The pornography industry generates billions of dollars in revenue each year, giving powerful financial interests a reason to keep it operating despite concerns about its social and personal effects.[22] Moreover, this brings us full circle. Capitalism, which Darwinism has historically supported, also ends up supporting the pornography industry because it treats pornography as a profitable business or “laissez-faire economics.”[23]
If capitalism depends on endless economic growth, and pornography contributes to that growth, then what mechanism can be used to stop pornography? According to libertarian principles, pornography should not be restricted. This is where libertarianism faces a serious challenge..........
....In other words, this system resembles ideas that Jewish revolutionary movements have supported throughout history. This argument is developed by E. Michael Jones in his books The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History and Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury, where he contends that Jewish revolutionary movements and modern capitalism have often shared common interests in weakening moral, social and economic structures in much of the West.
In the foreword to Block’s book, Rothbard repeats the central libertarian principle by arguing that: “Fearlessly, and with logic and trenchant wit, Professor Block rehabilitates and demonstrates the considerable economic merits of such scapegoat occupations as the pimp, the blackmailer, and the slumlord.”[34] According to libertarian principles, the profiteer, the “fat capitalist-pig employer,” the rate buster, the usurer, and many other figures who have historically been criticized as exploiters of the poor or obstacles to economic justice are not villains at all. As Rothbard put it in his foreword to Block’s book, they are “heroes, but not necessarily saints..”[35] Rothbard concludes his forward by saying, “If you don’t like the idea of a usurer or a slumlord being a hero, then the only way to deprive him of this stature is to remove the shackles that misguided people have placed upon him.”[36] What Rothbard ends up saying indirectly here is that Yuri Slezkine’s thesis that the twentieth century is the Jewish century is actually correct.[37]
Now, I appreciate Rothbard and especially Block for some intellectual consistency, because they were willing to follow libertarian principles to their logical conclusions, regardless of how bitter those conclusions might be. They were willing to accept the implications of their ideology. In that respect, they can be compared to thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre, who followed their own philosophical premises to their logical and bitter conclusions. Likewise, Rothbard argued in his introduction to Block’s book that anyone who takes the principles of Adam Smith seriously should arrive at similar conclusions. As Rothbard put it, “the Smithian principles work even in these cases” that Block discusses in his book.
In other words, if Smithian and libertarian principles are carried to their logical conclusion, one eventually ends up defending rapacious profiteers, blackmailers, pimps, pornographers, prostitutes, and many others. The same principles can also be used to justify the constant search for cheaper labor and fewer economic restrictions. This creates pressure for large-scale immigration because businesses benefit from a larger labor pool and lower labor costs. This process has historically weakened the bargaining power of workers and created economic difficulties for citizens. Whether one agrees with this conclusion or not, the argument is that libertarian principles can lead to outcomes that their supporters either overlook or are unwilling to acknowledge.
In fact, there is a substantial body of historical and economic research showing that many business elites, industrialists, and employer groups have often supported immigration because it increases the supply of cheap labor and can help reduce labor costs. If companies are not required to pay a living wage—a wage sufficient to support a family and contribute to the long-term stability of society—they will naturally seek the cheapest labor available in order to maximize profits and reduce costs. Businesses have a strong incentive to increase the labor supply whenever possible. This dynamic can place downward pressure on wages and weaken the economic position of workers. This pattern was visible in nineteenth-century America, where many employers favored large-scale immigration because it provided a steady source of cheap labor for rapidly expanding industries.[38] As economic historian Morrell Heald puts it,
“The interest of employers in recruiting cheap labor and strikebreakers from Europe is a familiar story. That industrialists and their allies in the years of rapid expansion and mechanization of the American economy stood to gain as much as any other group, even including the aliens themselves, from the maintenance of large-scale immigration has appeared so obvious as to demand little careful investigation.”[39]
George J. Borjas, “America’s leading immigration economists” of Harvard, has been writing about this for years.[40]
In his brief endorsement of Block’s book, F. A. Hayek, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics, acknowledged the influence of Ludwig von Mises, stating that “Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free-market position.” Hayek noted that he found Block’s arguments “occasionally incredulous,” but said that he usually found himself agreeing with the book’s central thesis. He then added: “Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it.”[41]
Once again, we can appreciate the candor of these people. Unlike many advocates of the Darwinian ideology, who often retreat from the logical implications of their own principles when faced with difficult questions, Block and other libertarians were willing to follow their ideas to conclusions that are morally and philosophically troubling. This is precisely what makes Defending the Undefendable so revealing. Rather than avoiding controversial implications, Block openly argues that if libertarian principles are applied consistently, then activities such as pornography, prostitution, and other behaviors regarded as immoral may nevertheless deserve legal protection. In that sense, Block lays out the libertarian system in its most explicit form. This demonstrates that capitalism is not merely a neutral system of economic exchange but also carries moral, social, and political implications. Furthermore, libertarianism benefits the interests of the wealthy and powerful by placing individual economic freedom above practical reason. Block writes, “Taxation is contrary to the basic principle because it involves aggression against nonaggressive citizens who refuse to pay.”[42]
If taxation is fundamentally illegitimate, as many libertarians maintain, then it becomes difficult to explain why wealthy individuals should feel any obligation to pay taxes in the first place. If the rich and powerful can avoid taxes through legal loopholes or other means, what principle within the libertarian framework compels them to act differently? Libertarianism obviously creates a self-reinforcing system. The same principles used to defend rapacious profiteers, blackmailers, and other crooks can also be used to defend aggressive tax avoidance and other detrimental practices. As a result, the system leaves little room for broader considerations of social responsibility, the common good, or the flourishing of the average family in any society. In that sense, libertarianism does not merely defend free exchange. Rather, it can function as an ideological justification for conduct that are exploitative, including corporate misconduct, negligence, manipulation, and the pursuit of profit without regard for wider social consequences.
For example, if pharmaceutical companies are deliberately encouraging overmedication or promoting treatments primarily to increase profits, then who is to say that such behavior is wrong?[43] Wouldn’t it be nice if the government stayed out of situations like this, even when companies make the workplace unbearable for workers? Wouldn’t it be nice to apply this so-called “laissez-faire” ideology consistently? Haven’t pharmaceutical companies been doing exactly that for years so they can sell their products, regardless of the risks and side effects? And haven’t they pressured doctors and medical professionals not to tell patients about some of those side effects?[44] Block goes on to propound:
“Libertarians maintain that as far as political theory is concerned, anything which does not involve the initiation of violence is not evil and that as far as political theory is concerned, anything which does not involve the initiation of violence is not a punishable evil and should not be outlawed. And this is the basis for the first part of my argument. The so-called ‘villains’ are not villains at all, in this sense, because they do not initiate violence against nonaggressors.”[45]
What about a grown man having consensual sex with a nine-or ten-year-old girl? Is that evil according to the libertarian premise? If Block wants to remain consistent, he would have to say no. Taking the argument a step further, why is the media still shocked by Jeffrey Epstein’s practice of taking girls to a private island for the rich and powerful? Many of those girls went to the island consensually.
In a similar way, the libertarian system can undermine family formation by defending wages that are too low for an average worker to support a large family. The typical libertarian argues that if Mr. Jones agrees to work for a certain wage, what right does the government have to prevent an employer from paying him that amount? Once again, the libertarian position does not seem to add up.[46]
One final argument against the libertarian system is that many libertarians are strongly opposed to war, yet they often fail to condemn the military-industrial complex, the very system that profits from the production of weapons. If there is no war, how will the military-industrial complex continue to make money? And if there is no profit, how can the system sustain itself? The typical libertarian will often dance around this question and come up with ridiculous answers to defend the system.